1. The United States attended the Eleventh Meeting of StatesParties to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)as an observer from May 14-18 in New York. The Meetingreviewed the annual report of the International Tribunal onthe Law of the Sea, the report of the external auditors forthe financial year 1999, a report from the InternationalSeabed Authority, and a report from the Chairman of theCommission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Themeeting engaged in a debate on the meaning of Article 319 ofthe Law of the Sea Convention and addressed the pendingdilemma faced by States in meeting a Convention requirementto submit the coordinates of the outer limits of theircontinental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf. The meeting was chaired by AmbassadorChristian Marquieri of Chile. U.S. statements are inParagraph 8 and 10. * * * *

8. Begin Text of U.S. position, delivered by George Taft:

Mr. President:

My delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for itsthoughtful background paper on issues with respect to Article4, Annex II, of the Law of the Sea Convention. I would alsothank the Chairman of the Commission on the Limits of theContinental Shelf (CLCS) for his letter and the PacificIsland Forum States for their position paper.

First, we believe that there is a need for a decision of theMeeting of States Parties to clarify the date on which the10-year period for submissions to the CLCS commences.Second, we believe, as well, that there is a broader issueregarding submissions, even after the aforementionedclarification is made.

With respect to the first issue, it was only after May 13,1999, when the Scientific and Technical Guidelines wereadopted by the Commission, that States had the informationnecessary to commence preparing submissions to theCommission, taking into account the Commission'sexpectations. In our view, this is the logical date to viewthe 10-year period to have begun. This date does no violenceto the Convention and should assist several states,particularly developing states. Action in this regard shouldbe taken by a decision of States Parties, for which there isprecedent.

With respect to the second issue regarding submissions moregenerally, there are a number of factors to bear in mind inapproaching this issue.

First, a continental shelf is inherent in a coastal state'ssovereign territory. The fact that a state has not submitteddata in relation to its shelf to the CLCS does not, andcannot, mean that it has lost part of its shelf, but ratherthat it has not, in effect, a settled boundary vis--vis theArea. A state may, of course, explore and exploit its shelfbeyond 200 miles, even before it makes a submission.

Second, a coastal state, which does not have resources tomake a scientifically sound submission, must not beprejudiced if it fails to make a full submission within the10-year period.

Third, in complying with the provisions of Article 4 of AnnexII, a state is reasonably expected to make a submission usingthe best information it has available. It is recognized thata state may not have sufficient data upon which theCommission could make a recommendation. That state shouldnevertheless be considered to have complied with the 10-yearperiod if it informed the Commission that it intends to makea further submission. In this regard, even generallyaccepted charts might be the essence of the initialsubmission. Good faith is essential. Putting the Commissionand the international community on notice is important.

Fourth, technical issues which might result in a limitedsubmission might include: environmental dangers anduncertainties in gathering data using traditional availablemethods; extreme weather conditions; unavailability ofaffordable technical assistance; and lack of a scientificconsensus on, for example, the evaluation of certain data.In this latter regard, scientists know now much more thanthey knew when Article 76 was negotiated. But more will beknown in the years ahead.

Fifth, the Convention was negotiated to foster stability inocean space. Stability of expectations must be enhanced, notdiminished. While no state may assert jurisdiction over theArea, no state may be deprived of a part of its continentalshelf recognized by international law. If a stateover-reaches or if a state is somehow deprived, instabilitywould result. But it should be noted that perhaps 30-40states have a continental shelf beyond 200 miles. Therefore,realistic expectations are a necessity.

Sixth, the Commission may not prejudice boundary delimitationmatters between opposite and adjacent states or mattersbeyond the competence of the Commission and beyond theframework of the Convention.

Mr. President, we believe that the aforementioned approach isconsistent with the Law of the Sea Convention as written; itrequires no amendment of the Convention; it requires noimplementing Agreement. And we must be wary of anyamendments to the Convention or of agreements whichessentially amend the Convention. The balance of theConvention should not be buffeted or put at serious risk byactions which cannot be confined to the narrow issue beforeus.

Thank you. End Text.* * * *10. The U.S. provided a legal analysis of its positioncontained in the following statement delivered by Head ofDelegation Maureen Walker.

Begin Text:

Mr. President, Fellow Delegates,

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Meeting ofStates Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law ofthe Sea.

Article 319 imposes a duty on the United Nations SecretaryGeneral to convene meetings of States Parties.

Under customary international law, as reflected in the ViennaConvention on the Law of Treaties, this provision must beinterpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of itsterms in their context and in light of the Convention'sobject and purpose. Any subsequent agreement between theParties regarding the interpretation of the Convention, andsubsequent practice between the Parties in the application ofthe agreement, are also to be taken into account in itsinterpretation. To the extent that the terms of theprovision are ambiguous, the relevant negotiating history ofthe provision should be considered.

The text of Article 319 provides in relevant part: "2. Inaddition to his functions as depositary, the SecretaryGeneral shall: (a) report to all States Parties, theAuthority, and competent international organizations on

issues of a general nature that have arisen with respect tothis Convention; . . . (e) convene necessary meetings ofStates Parties in accordance with this Convention."

The mandate to the Secretary General to convene meetings isqualified in two respects: first, it is limited to meetingsthat are "necessary"; second, the mandate is linked to otherparts of the Convention.

Only two other areas of the Convention refer to "meetings ofStates Parties": (a) Annex II, which establishes theCommission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf andrequires the election of its members at a meeting of StatesParties; and (b) Annex VI, the Statute of the InternationalTribunal for the Law of the Sea, which requires the electionof Tribunal members and the determination of the Tribunal'sbudget to be performed at a meeting of the States Parties.No other provisions of the Convention either require actionby a meeting of the States Parties or acknowledge thepossibility of action by a meeting of States Parties.

As a result, a strict reading of Article 319 (2) (e) suggeststhat this provision should not be interpreted to mandate orauthorize the Secretary General to convene a far-reachingreview of general matters related to the Convention.

It is also important to note that Article 319(2)(e) differssignificantly from language used in other multilateralConventions -- typically multilateral environmentalagreements -- that have established autonomous institutionalarrangements based on a "Conference of Parties (COP)". Theseagreements typically contain express language referring invarying degrees to the COP's ongoing role in overseeing theimplementation and observance of the Convention. Examplesinclude the RAMSAR Convention, Article 6 where the COP shallreview and promote implementation of the Convention; CITES,Art. XI (3); Bonn Convention on Conservation of MigratorySpecies, Article VII (5); Basel Convention, Article 15 (5);and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 7(2). Several of these agreements predate the Law of the SeaConvention. The absence of such language in the LOSConvention indicates that the negotiators did not envisionthe establishment of a similar institutional arrangement here.

This reading is further supported by the context of Article319. Paragraph 2 of Article 319 makes a clear distinctionbetween (a) meetings of the States Parties, and (b) theissuance of a report by the Secretary General on "issues of ageneral nature that have risen with respect to thisConvention. This context makes it clear that issues of ageneral nature are allocated to the Secretary General'sreport rather than to a Meeting of States Parties.

The subsequent practice of the Parties to the Conventionlends still further weight to a narrow reading of Article 319(2) (e).

The Meetings of States Parties have focused on duties relatedto the Tribunal and the Shelf Commission (which are thespecified functions of the annual meetings) and have avoidedexpanding their agendas to address wider LOS-relatedquestions. The issues raised during this meeting concerningthe 10 year rule was primarily an organizational questionrelated to the delay in the elections for the Commission.

At the same time, the annual meetings of the United NationsGeneral Assembly have included since 1982 an agenda item onthe law of the sea. That forum has thus performed a broad

review function regarding issues of a general nature. Therecent establishment of the UN Informal Consultative Process,pursuant to an initiative of the Rio Group and SOPAC,emanating from CSD-7, is designed to allow more time fordiscussion of implementation and coordination of mattersbased on the Secretary General's report.

These practices together provide an important indication ofthe common and contemporaneous understanding of the Partiesregarding the meaning of Article 319 and the intended scopeof the meeting of States Parties.

To the extent that any ambiguity about the narrow scope ofArticle 319 (2)(e) remains, the negotiating history of theConvention provides a strong negative implication in supportof the narrow scope referred to above.During the negotiations, certain delegations supportedvarious proposals that would in effect have established amechanism for the periodic review of the Convention,including the establishment of a periodic assembly to reviewcommon problems and address new uses of the seas. Theseproposals all failed to attract support and were ultimatelyreduced to the language now appearing in Article 319 (2)(a),concerning the general reports to be made by the SecretaryGeneral. (See V United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea 1982: A Commentary (G. Nordquist, ed. 1989 at 289-99).

Separately, the negotiating Conference requested theSecretary General to prepare a study of his functions underthe draft Convention, including under then-draft Article319(2)(a). The Secretary General's study, submitted in 1981,makes it clear that any general review function under theConvention would be handled as part of his reportingobligation in Article 319, and that such reporting would beprepared "on the basis of systematic consultations." But italso cautions that, before any mechanisms for suchconsultation could be established, "further work would beneeded on possible alternative methods for consultinggovernments . . . and ensuring better coordination on oceanspace matters."

This negotiating history strongly suggests that thedelegations to the negotiating conference never intended toempower the meeting of the States Parties to perform a reviewor even consultation function regarding general issuespertaining to the Convention or its implementation.Thank you, Mr. President. END TEXT

11. Next Meeting. The next meeting will take place May13-24, 2002. The election of seven judges to theInternational Tribunal on the Law of the Sea will occur atthat time. In addition, an election for all 21 Commissionersto the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf willoccur.CUNNINGHAM_________________________________________________________________

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Sign-in

Do you already have an account on one of these sites? Click the logo to sign in and create your own customized State Department page. Want to learn more? Check out our FAQ!

Because JavaScript is disabled, you can only sign in by entering your OpenID URL manually: